Message-ID: <37E8E76E.7AC32EF3@htmlhelp.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 10:27:58 -0400
From: Liam Quinn <liam@htmlhelp.com>
To: Ann Navarro <ann@webgeek.com>
CC: Uriel Wittenberg <uw@urielw.com>, www-validator@w3.org
Subject: Re: OK to display W3C logo based on 3'rd party validator?
Ann Navarro wrote:
>
> At 05:45 PM 9/21/99 -0400, Uriel Wittenberg wrote:
> >Liam Quinn insists I am entitled to display the W3C "valid HTML" logo
> >based on validation at http://www.htmlhelp.com. Is this true?
>
> Their published FAQ on the differences between validators
> http://www.htmlhelp.com/tools/validator/differences.html
>
> says that they don't use the W3C Validator source
But note that both validators use the same SGML parser. Everything else
about the validators is mostly just dressing up what the SGML parser
spits out.
> therefore, IMO -- no it
> wouldn't be wise to do so. Their programming techniques may very well be up
> to par with the W3C version, but then again, they might overlook something,
> or not be as fine tuned as the W3C version
Or it might be better than the W3C version. Try validating a UTF-8
document with both validators, and only the WDG validator will give you
correct results--the W3C validator often reports bogus errors. So does
that mean that valid UTF-8 documents can't display the "valid HTML"
badge?
The issue is whether the validation badge is stating that the document
uses valid HTML, which is what the W3C's suggested ALT text indicates,
or whether the badge is saying that the document passes the W3C
validator. I think the badge is more useful and meaningful when it says
that the document uses valid HTML.
The W3C validator says, in error-free results, "you may display this
icon on any page that validates". A page that has no errors according
to the WDG validator most certainly "validates".
--
Liam Quinn
A Real Validator for Windows, http://arealvalidator.com
Web Design Group, http://www.htmlhelp.com